SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (128877)4/4/2012 9:06:35 AM
From: TideGlider4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 
He was dead wrong!

He said it would be judicial activism if they did it.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (128877)4/4/2012 9:40:20 AM
From: longnshort5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 
ok here's the rub, try to follow along. when people voted for lets say an anti gay marriage law, a liberal judge jumps in and says it unconsitutional that judical activism.

with obama care 39 states attorney generals asked the USCC to look at it, that's not judicial activism. do you see the difference ?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (128877)4/4/2012 10:50:35 AM
From: Farmboy4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224744
 
<<That verbal order is meaningless >>

Kenneth, it is no wonder that you fail to exhibit the detail-oriented mindset required for one to be a good practicing attorney. The detail in this case is that you and I both know that 'verbal order' carries the same weight as any written order, and also, that 'verbal order' has already been reduced to written form as a record of the court.

Anyone who would classify it as 'meaningless' would find themselves in Contempt of Court, if the judge so wished, and subject to the penalties for that offense.

I am simply amazed that you claim to be an attorney, and continually exhibit such disregard for the authority of the judicial system. Something there just does not jive.